The simplicity of the term 'natural selection' makes one believe the big experts have studied and consensus is sure. Wow. Thank you for this presentation
The term 'natural selection' is the greatest of hoodwinks. As the panel has discussed. It is derived from a Darwinian story, not observation. If anything, 'nature' produces processes of ecological de-selection, or 'deletion'. If an organism cannot survive in an ecosystem it either moves or dies. Nothing new is thereby created, but organisms are, ultimately, eliminated with the least incompatible with an ecosystem being last in line for deletion. It is a facile and tendentious nonsense term that creationists should resist. No human breeder randomly breeds then kills the unsatisfactory (by some criterion) progeny. They select individuals to breed based on assessed characteristics. Nature does nothing like this.
@@dagwould Natural selection is a perfect description of what actually happens. You babbling on about "deletion" or "de-selection" shows you don't even understand simple words, much less the actual science of evolution. When one thing is selected from a group, others are not. "Selection" consists of some being chosen and others not. We see it every day in human social and reproductive life; of several siblings of one family, it often happens that one or more are not particularly healthy and attractive and thus never end up married and in the procreation game. By natural selection, the genes of the healthy attractive ones are selected to carry on into the future and that others are not. Whatever unique traits the undesirable ones carried die out with them. Over millions and billions of generations this process often produces changes that turn out to be different species, genus, and so on. Our little group of Homo sapiens has been this way for only about 400,000 years, maybe roughly 5x (2 million) as many generations. On a time scale of life on earth, that is a ridiculously short time. If one represents the earth's history as a football field, humans as a species, people we could be sexually compatible with, emerged in the final (of a kick-off return) heartbreaking 1/8 of an INCH!!!!! To quote the Righteous Brothers, "Time can do so much." Of course, if you are a young earth creationist, my words are meaningless to you.
Have you ever met people who for reasons of health or appearance have never married and had kids? Their genes will not get passed on to a new generation of the gene pool. Natural selection, no magic.
Breeders choose from available choices. They do not, through selection, create new information. Sometimes, they can, through deletion of information, cause a new outcome. This is a change taking place due to taking away information, not adding on of new information.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Problem from the evolutionary viewpoint is, mutations are destructive not constructive: ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.] Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.] Science doesn't know any evolutionary beneficial mutations which could transform the body plan of any given organism. All known mutations have been non-structural like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria etc. So they are in fact devolution by destroyed genes, not evolution. They may sometimes give an occasional advantage but these mutations usually have a "price tag" which can be harmful or deadly.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Mutations always lead to the loss of information...Even when Dawkins was asked if he could give an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase information...could not come up with even one example.
This is the biggest orgy of quote mining I have ever come across. It’s really quite exceptional. It would seem ICR has gone all in at the poker table of stupid.
Once upon a time, there was a flying spaghetti monster named the theory of evolution. Though he had no mind nor goals, he could and did absolutely everything. No matter how complex beyond comprehension, beautifully seemingly designed, or mathematically improbable, he could do it. All he required was enough time, even though the time required for the miraculous things he did there was not enough of since the beginning of the universe. It doesn't matter. He is believed in with the same mindlessness he consists of. He can never be disproved, saying that something is impossible for him to have done it, because there is absolutely nothing he can't do. After all, the theory of evolution is the quintessential flying spaghetti monster!
"All he required was enough time, ..." Time! The omnipotent time! Time can overcome even the laws of physics and the laws of mathematical probabilities ... But wait a second ... What is the mechanism behind that assumption? My humble opinion is that time has never been shown to create anything, as time is not an agent.
@@jounisuninen Time doesn't create anything, it's the subtle little changes that occur over time that change everything. In less than 50 years the Peppered moth in London changed from being white to black, why? because of the industrial revolution the trees were covered in soot from the coal fires, the white moths stood out and were eaten by birds while the darker moths escaped being eaten, in just a few years the darker the moths were the more they survived until they were completely black. It's common sense really.
@@Shytot-1 "Subtle changes over time" never seen in the fossil record...humm By the way the moths were still moths...they did not change to another species or kind.
@@alantasman8273 The USA and Europe are separating (plate tectonics) by 1.5 inches every year, that's 125 feet every 1000 years, in a million years that's 23.67 miles, in 10 million years that's 236 miles. The dinosaurs existed for 300 hundred million years and they died out 60 million years ago. Are you beginning to get the picture? "Subtle changes over a vast amount of time".
What is most amazing to me at this point is that only 90 other people have "liked" this broacast. Heads in the sand? Frankly, I don't need a Ph.D. in any scientific field to realize that the "natural selection" concept doesn't, and never did, make any sense. Having listened to Dr. Guluzzia's presentation on his CET theory, it is very easily understood to be a supernatural process, the likes of which could only be from our creator. It is always the same old deception and effort to make "man" god, so he can make the rules and not having to be accountable to the real one true God.
@@StudentDad-mc3puWe just have to believe you because you say so? A good example of one of Darwin's traits. Making big bold but unsubstantiated claims. 😏
@@mk71b I'm just saying how it appears to anyone with any understanding of science. Natural selection is a probable and actually observable process, which is why Darwin was able to describe it.
Causing something said to be able to become whatever someone wants it to be is a method of hypnosis. Politicians are sometimes good at using this method, purposefully. They use techniques to have people fill in with their own desires what they are saying. They use being vague in deceptive ways to accomplish this. This is a way to become not just voted for, but to become worshipped by people.
@@mr.battle20 Within the first few seconds of the video I hear that Jesus was the 'creator' BUT.. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things...that wasn't Jesus. It goes downhill from there. Don't divert from faith threat and fear, it's all you have.
@@mr.battle20Also theists don't understand the principles of science which is to move forward with new discoveries and information on a subject like evolution which is being constantly updated. This is the opposite of theism which has to deny all modern discoveries due to a book written by people who knew only myth and wonder. As you believe that God created man and man brought forward the knowledge of Him how was it that only the Hebrews and no surrounding areas, or in fact nowhere in the entire World knew of God. Does that not worry you Mr Lostthebattle?
@@dongee1664 So you don't want to see or hear anything that challenges your worldview ... OK. What else is evolution than faith? I prefer believing in something that is NOT proven non-existent (God) than believing in something that IS proven non-existent (abiogenesis and evolution from a Universal Common Ancestor).
@@jounisuninen Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said which was factual. Evolution is faith, is it?? No, there is a mountain of evidence for evolution and I am quite sure that you have never investigated it. You seem content in ignoring everything that science has discovered in recent times. I would suggest that you refrain from using worn out theist remarks and stick to faith..
No crabs into beavers, but plenty of humans who have never actually read a single book about evolution and depend entirely on creationist blurbs for their info. Modern crabs and beavers (and lilacs and dogs and ants and elms) all have a common ancestor from billions of years ago.
Dr. Hebert mentioned that there is a shortage of people willing to delve into the literature. I've recently finished my BSc in general science, and one of the things I enjoyed most about my educational experience was digging into the literature on a topic and writing a paper on it. I'm just training for a job as a Meteorological Technician, and the position is going to leave me with some time and opportunity for further professional development. Can you offer some guidance in how I might be able to contribute to creation research?
Andrea, besides praying about your involvement, I suggest: 1. Develop your knowledge on creation science , 2. Teach creation science topics at the local church level, 3. Perhaps, eventually, pursue a PhD in a science you're fired up about. 4. Pray about creation science ministry.
There is no such thing as 'creation research' - there is just research - if you do 'creation research' you are starting with a presupposition - I thought you did a science degree.
@@paulwood6636 It is also important to come to grips with the literature on philosophy and theology of science. Yes, theology. You might start with Stanley Jaki's and Peter Harrison's work and read even 'liberal' theologians on creation. Then the philosophers, defined broadly. Popper is a must, as is Lakatos, Kuhn is OK, but more a sociologist of science. Polanyi is interesting, but again, less a philosopher IMO. There are plenty of basic PoS texts around to get you started...then you might read a couple of basic philosophy of religion texts. Again, there is no shortage of them. Scientists are not always good philosophers of their own domain, so get acquainted. Philosophy is 'tools for thinking'.
Some good suggestions here. I would suggest taking in some information from the Discovery Institute. They have some of the best content I have seen. Biology of living organisms is far too complex for abiogenesis to handle. Be aware that evolutionists are not above outright lying (I can give an example from RUclips comments). Having a firm background in advanced biological investigation will get you closer to where you want to be.
They think accidental mutations accidentally cause mindless changes, some nuetral, some positive, and some negative to survival and reproduction. Positive accidental changes will make an organism more likely survive and remain. Negative mutational changes will cause the organism to more likely die, killing off and removing the negative mutations. It's not really the way reality works, but this extremely simplistic thinking is pretty much how they think.
Evolutionists tend to hide the problem of genome not being able to generate (macro)evolution. In their theory mutations bring new information to the genome, thus creating new body plans i.e. evolution. This theory is against everything that science knows of mutations: ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.] Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.] Science doesn't know evolutionary beneficial mutations that could transform the body plan of any given organism i.e. to generate (macro)evolution. All known mutations have been non-structural like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria, metabolic changes, colour changes etc.
@@stevepierce6467 the first chapter of the Bible prescribes that creatures will always produce after their own kind. This prediction is verified every moment of every day in real-time. Darwin's prediction has never been observed.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 Except for all the times it has been observed, never. Genesis is a claim, not evidence. I can see natural selection every single day, as when the less attractive brother or sister ends up unmarried and childless, thus deleting her/his genes from the gene pool. Over millions of generations, this process often produces new species and genus and more. Homo sapiens is only about 20,000 generations or less old (400,000 years). Before that, the pre-human beings were not sexually compatible with modern humans, different species (although there is a lot of evidence that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were close enough to be compatible, a bit like dogs and wolves).
It would be interesting to know your opinion on the ecological niches axes conept, adaptation and the possibility of microevolution, in contrast to macroevolution
If "nature" and its selection in the Dog-kind , versus Human breeding of the Dog-kind is compared, doesn't that confirm that "nature" is extremely limited in its ability To come up with large variety? Hundreds of new dog breeds in the last 150+/- years, v the "millions of years" of "natural selection" wild(wolf, fox, etc) ones?
Can natural selection be legitimately viewed in a limited sense by creationists as just a euphemism for environmental changes that allows the organisms with certain genetic variable features more survivability? Variability that was created into the design of the organism by the Creator?
Given the looseness of the definition, I'd avoid the term altogether. God didn't design a world wherein animals would be competing for resources, let alone eating each other so I wouldn't say that natural selection was part of his plan; just an observable consequence of the fall.
Good question Andrew. But, the answer is No because the environment is not responsible for the change. The organism adapts because of innate programming.
'euphemism' is not the correct term because it means a more socially acceptable word (e.g. Americans say 'rest room' or 'powder room' rather than 'toilet'. Also 'natural selection' is an oxymoron...and moronic...and probably demonic.
@@paulwood6636 Evolution theory according to Wikipedia means: 1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution. 2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago. Point 1. is true as long as it does not mean new body plans appearing. Science has observed only intraspecies variation, not any structurally new species that could lead to new taxonomic genus or family. Point 2. is only a hypothesis which has never been scientifically proved. If there ever was UCA, that asexual creature would've destroyed evolution before it could've even started. Evolutionists nearly always try to cover these principles when they are dealing with seasoned creationists. There is no sign that birds, insects, mice etc. would be changing to something else than birds, insects, mice etc. Their genes simply don't allow it and mutations are not creative.
I would say that the entirety of His Plan and Design accounts for everything-even the consequences of man’s good and bad choices. “Natural CHOICES “ presupposes “Supra Natural Mind” in the creation, thus, if there is “choosing” there must be a mind involved as an a priori, And if the thing in nature is choosing without conscious mind then, it is following programmed information logic.
9:29 " It's worth noting the title of the article, "Natural selection, a conceptionally incoherent term'." For those who don't understand, that could be written, "Natural selection, a load of bollocks."
@@StudentDad-mc3pu What evidence? Evidence for evolution or evidence for adaptive intraspecifi variation? Neo-Darwinians have two different processes called "evolution" while neither of them is evolution in the Darwinian sense. 1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution. (Wikipedia) 2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago. (Wikipedia) Point 1 is true if it does not try to claim that new body plans appear into existing species. Science has observed only intraspecific adaptive variation, never structurally new species that could lead to a new taxonomic genus, family, order, class etc. This is sometimes called ”micro evolution”. No new genetic information is needed in the "micro evolution" since all changes happen within the species' own genome (gene recombination). Point 2 is just a hypothesis which has never been scientifically proven. It is usually called ”evolution” or ”macro evolution”. It would need such totally new genetic information which is not found in the species' existing genome. Since (macro)evolution is fiction, new genes of course are not needed. This is fortunate, because there isn’t any qualitatively new "free" genetic information to be found on our planet. All genes are already fixed in their appropriate species.
I’d love to see all of you debate Aron Ra at once, as he’d shut you down every step of the way, and I know you certainly wouldn’t want that to happen seeing everything you say is based on faith, and not evidence !
What they don't address are all the myriads of mutation results that would not work. It's all based on that a random mistake has the slight possible potential to allow an organism to continue to exist in a changing environment while the original organism becomes obsolete. For all the few mutations that might work to cause the organism to remain, there would be myriads of mutations that not only would not be conducive to allowing a better chance at remaining, but would be harmful and confusing within the organism's likelihood of surviving. Examples of mutations being helpful are close to nonexistent.
@@LuciferAlmighty @LuciferAlmighty You presuppose they are from countless beneficial, perfectly synchronized mutations all coming together in one organism at one time exactly when needed. Wow! Talk about faith.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Oh really. How is natural selection fueled by survival going to select for the millions and millions of mutations needed for an arm over vast periods of time the whole while the arm is a liability until fully formed and functional, with hands and fingers. OK, I'm waiting.
'Hello everyone"? A RUclips or podcast presenter has an audience of one-at-a-time. Plural language makes the presentation far less engaging. Best to use the old saying of radio presenters: always imagine that your are talking to only one person, a good friend who you've been out of touch with for a few years. This gives a natural warmth, intimacy and connection to your presentation.
What did Darwin pull off? Only the 3rd greatest lie in history; No.1 being the lie 'You will not die', No.2 being that the liar who said that does not exist.
'You will not die' - true! When Lord Jesus spoke of death he often meant the eternal death, not necessarily the death all people meet sooner or later. In this life we choose between temporary death and eternal death.
The term "evolution" is no different. No one can define what it even means. I know of at least 6 different definitions, and the evolutionsist is always ready to pivot and use a different definition as soon as they get in trouble. It's a bait and switch.
Jesus was a co-creator with his Father..... His Father Is the Prime creator,,, thus is completely Biblical. Did Jesus ressurect himself? Why did Jesus pray to his Father? And even asked 'why have you forsaken me?' Jesus is our mediator to Heavenly Father.... why Does rev say Jesus hands the Keys back over to his Father when His Fathers Kingdom has been restored? Jesus embodied and expressed his Father's Spirit on earth to honour and Glorify his Father...... Jesus said 'the Father is greater than I' Jesus was perfectly connected to his Father and so he could say 'I and the Father are one's but when he became extremely angry and violently judgmental in the temple, he disconnected himself from his Father and even his own clear teaching of non-judgment, as Bible says the Father is the supreme judge.... but for Jesus to be the perfect intersessor between us and the Father he had to feel and understand how difficult it is to be perfect, he was born into the fallen nature of humankind and he truly overcame sin by his suffering and final prayer asking his Father to 'Forgive them for they know not what they do' this way he fully pleased his Father. Yes as bible says 'he will be called mighty God' but his Father is GOD. I pray that you you understand this and give full honour to our Perfect heavenly Father,,,, and his Perfect begotton Son Jesus Christ. Peace love faith wisdom and Joy to You.
I wonder how many American Christians appreciate the fact that they were born in the right country to get the one true religion? how lucky are they that they were not born in Pakistan, Japan or Saudi Arabia? or they might never have heard about Jesus Christ let alone know who he was. Does it bother Christians that there are Billions of people who were given absolutely no chance of getting into heaven? they were born and lived their lives without ever hearing the name Jesus Christ.
@@truthbebold4009The person who wrote the words Jesus is supposed to have said (because Jesus didn't write any part of the bible) wrote "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." That, as you have just pointed out is not true if you can get into heaven without even knowing the name Jesus. Don't you ever sit and think? "This is just rubbish designed for suckers to believe".
@@truthbebold4009 For me there is no heaven (and no one can be sure there was a Jesus) but that's what it says in your book. It's well known that religious people cherry pick the bits they want or do not want to believe.
It all has to do with how much wacky weed they (the evolutionists) have smoked before and during their hypothesizing on the subject and how many bags of chips and pop tarts they have consumed.
"...our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ" ...I wish I could get my head wrapped around that. How many hats must Jesus wear? : Created, Resurrected, Creator. I'm confused. Can Jesus be the Perfect Model of a man? - leading us (?) Can I be a Christian if Jesus is not a Creator to me? Must Jesus be something magical?
@@jounisuninen My problem is not Jesus, it is John! Bible scholars agree that John never existed. The Gospel of John was written 140 - 160 years after Jesus walked the Earth. Yet 'John' writes, "And Jesus said..." (how would 'John' know what Jesus said - like I can't say, "And Abe Lincoln said..." - 150 years ago! Why I take the Bible with a grain of salt.
@@jthepickle7would you say that is undisputed? You say that the scholars agree that John did not exist and you give dates. Perhaps you should educate yourself some more.
@@jthepickle7don’t ever try to write an biography on Lincoln if you can’t say anything about Lincoln. And since you can’t say anything about Lincoln, why ARE you saying something about Lincoln? Who is this Lincoln? How can you be sure of anything about Lincoln? Are you even sure that what was wrote about Lincoln is reliable-given that you were not there and personally saw and knew Lincoln?
@@StudentDad-mc3punaw. Modern Science was founded by Christians who wanted to investigate Gods creation. Material Scientific Method itself is neutral, but not it’s purpose. We all bring our perspectives in when we explain it.
@@richiejourney1840 Science may have been about exploring 'Gods creation' for some early western scientists, however science itself was not just invented by western Christian ls but by atheistic heathens in ancient Greece, mystics in China and Muslim mathematicians. Yes, it is neutral. And it tells that Evolution describes the way speciation came about.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu "Evolution describes the way speciation came about." - No it doesn't. Evolution theory claims that speciation generates evolution. Also that is wrong. Surely there is natural selection which generates speciation. Speciation however can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution. Natural selection could produce evolution if it could deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the population. Natural selection however delivers nothing, it just exterminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or become too rare) which means that on population level everybody's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is just adaptation, not evolution. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct. We can observe that natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.
Disappointed in the discussion. Natural selection, in other words, is selection of the traits that best fit the environment. Natural selection is true. Evolution, common descent, is unproveable with no methodology. Imho it's false. Grace
Evolution would be possible if natural selection had extra genes to donate to the survivors. But natural selection owns nothing, it only wipes out the less fit. Survivors must continue with the genes they already have.
Why do creationists constantly bash Darwin? Darwin was one of the greatest scientists of all time. But these guys try to use his words out of context, using them to bolster their belief theories. This is not fair. You can find fault with anyone if you twist words.
Yeh, the most tested scientific theory of all time is in big trouble! LOL Accepted in all other scientific fields as the explanation for bio diversity on the planet it is on its knees!! LMFAO
@@StudentDad-mc3pu At least not in a trouble as big as the current one. The phlogiston theory in 1667 stated that phlogisticated substances contain phlogiston and that they dephlogisticate when burned, releasing stored phlogiston which is absorbed by the air. Phlogiston remained the dominant theory until the 1770s. Phlogiston theory was taught in universities even after it was debunked. Doesn't that sound like evolution theory today? Phlogiston teaches us that just because a theory is widely accepted among scientists, is believed to explain all the evidence, and reigns supreme for a long time, does not mean that it is true. Indeed, phlogiston was in many ways a stronger theory than is evolution today. The phlogiston theory lasted for over 100 years. For most of that time, all the prominent scientists believed it. It seemed to explain so much. But it was wrong. Although many today would laugh at the phlogiston theory as being hopelessly naive, nevertheless it was in many ways better justified than evolution, the ruling paradigm of our time.
After over 4 billion years of Earths existence God popped into the head of a Jew shaman who didn't want a proper job as a simple way of explaining Nature.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Yeah but the Judeao Christian faith and its offshoot Islam haven't curbed the murder, the theft, the lies, the powermongering . 98.5% of Nazi Germany were Christians
@@jounisuninen The half life for Uranium235 radioactive decay to Lead is 4.5 billion years. U235 is found everywhere in trace amounts and wide study of U235 to Lead ratios around the world come up with this figure which is in agreement with those obtained from meteorites and moon samples.
The simplicity of the term 'natural selection' makes one believe the big experts have studied and consensus is sure. Wow. Thank you for this presentation
The term 'natural selection' is the greatest of hoodwinks. As the panel has discussed. It is derived from a Darwinian story, not observation. If anything, 'nature' produces processes of ecological de-selection, or 'deletion'. If an organism cannot survive in an ecosystem it either moves or dies. Nothing new is thereby created, but organisms are, ultimately, eliminated with the least incompatible with an ecosystem being last in line for deletion. It is a facile and tendentious nonsense term that creationists should resist. No human breeder randomly breeds then kills the unsatisfactory (by some criterion) progeny. They select individuals to breed based on assessed characteristics. Nature does nothing like this.
@@dagwould
Great post dagwould. 👍
@@technicianbis5250it's a great post if you are unaware of how evolution works.
I haven't yet found a theist that does understand evolution.
@@dagwould Natural selection is a perfect description of what actually happens. You babbling on about "deletion" or "de-selection" shows you don't even understand simple words, much less the actual science of evolution. When one thing is selected from a group, others are not. "Selection" consists of some being chosen and others not. We see it every day in human social and reproductive life; of several siblings of one family, it often happens that one or more are not particularly healthy and attractive and thus never end up married and in the procreation game. By natural selection, the genes of the healthy attractive ones are selected to carry on into the future and that others are not. Whatever unique traits the undesirable ones carried die out with them. Over millions and billions of generations this process often produces changes that turn out to be different species, genus, and so on. Our little group of Homo sapiens has been this way for only about 400,000 years, maybe roughly 5x (2 million) as many generations. On a time scale of life on earth, that is a ridiculously short time. If one represents the earth's history as a football field, humans as a species, people we could be sexually compatible with, emerged in the final (of a kick-off return) heartbreaking 1/8 of an INCH!!!!! To quote the Righteous Brothers, "Time can do so much." Of course, if you are a young earth creationist, my words are meaningless to you.
Can you timestamp the topics so the audience can review points of interest? Thank you.
Very insightful discussion!!
Next week they are going to discuss Jack and the Beanstalk.
Fantastic job Dr. Thomas!
When people say 'Oh, it's natural selection, stoopid', they mean, 'It's magic.'
Have you ever met people who for reasons of health or appearance have never married and had kids? Their genes will not get passed on to a new generation of the gene pool. Natural selection, no magic.
Breeders choose from available choices. They do not, through selection, create new information. Sometimes, they can, through deletion of information, cause a new outcome. This is a change taking place due to taking away information, not adding on of new information.
No, mutation creates new information.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Problem from the evolutionary viewpoint is, mutations are destructive not constructive:
”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.]
Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.]
Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.]
Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.]
Science doesn't know any evolutionary beneficial mutations which could transform the body plan of any given organism. All known mutations have been non-structural like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria etc. So they are in fact devolution by destroyed genes, not evolution. They may sometimes give an occasional advantage but these mutations usually have a "price tag" which can be harmful or deadly.
@@StudentDad-mc3puyou seem to have misunderstood his point.
@@michaelcolthart4006 Ah, that would not be the first time. Sorry.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Mutations always lead to the loss of information...Even when Dawkins was asked if he could give an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase information...could not come up with even one example.
This is the biggest orgy of quote mining I have ever come across. It’s really quite exceptional. It would seem ICR has gone all in at the poker table of stupid.
It’s time for us to adopt the phrase “divine selection.”
Devine predilection would be appropriate.
Nice phrase......but not supported by any evidence.
@@stevepierce6467 glad you like it! It is supported by DNA evidence.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 Not a scintilla of DNA evidence for divine selection, but plenty for evolution!
@@stevepierce6467 there is zero evidence for evolution, only presumption. DNA is evidence of intelligent input, not randomness.
Once upon a time, there was a flying spaghetti monster named the theory of evolution. Though he had no mind nor goals, he could and did absolutely everything. No matter how complex beyond comprehension, beautifully seemingly designed, or mathematically improbable, he could do it. All he required was enough time, even though the time required for the miraculous things he did there was not enough of since the beginning of the universe. It doesn't matter. He is believed in with the same mindlessness he consists of. He can never be disproved, saying that something is impossible for him to have done it, because there is absolutely nothing he can't do. After all, the theory of evolution is the quintessential flying spaghetti monster!
"All he required was enough time, ..." Time! The omnipotent time! Time can overcome even the laws of physics and the laws of mathematical probabilities ... But wait a second ... What is the mechanism behind that assumption? My humble opinion is that time has never been shown to create anything, as time is not an agent.
@@jounisuninen It does, though, create more chaos as things disintegrate!
@@jounisuninen Time doesn't create anything, it's the subtle little changes that occur over time that change everything. In less than 50 years the Peppered moth in London changed from being white to black, why? because of the industrial revolution the trees were covered in soot from the coal fires, the white moths stood out and were eaten by birds while the darker moths escaped being eaten, in just a few years the darker the moths were the more they survived until they were completely black. It's common sense really.
@@Shytot-1 "Subtle changes over time" never seen in the fossil record...humm By the way the moths were still moths...they did not change to another species or kind.
@@alantasman8273 The USA and Europe are separating (plate tectonics) by 1.5 inches every year, that's 125 feet every 1000 years, in a million years that's 23.67 miles, in 10 million years that's 236 miles. The dinosaurs existed for 300 hundred million years and they died out 60 million years ago. Are you beginning to get the picture? "Subtle changes over a vast amount of time".
What is most amazing to me at this point is that only 90 other people have "liked" this broacast. Heads in the sand? Frankly, I don't need a Ph.D. in any scientific field to realize that the "natural selection" concept doesn't, and never did, make any sense. Having listened to Dr. Guluzzia's presentation on his CET theory, it is very easily understood to be a supernatural process, the likes of which could only be from our creator. It is always the same old deception and effort to make "man" god, so he can make the rules and not having to be accountable to the real one true God.
Not really - most people recognise it for the logically incoherent nonsense it is.
@@StudentDad-mc3puWe just have to believe you because you say so? A good example of one of Darwin's traits. Making big bold but unsubstantiated claims. 😏
@@mk71b I'm just saying how it appears to anyone with any understanding of science. Natural selection is a probable and actually observable process, which is why Darwin was able to describe it.
Causing something said to be able to become whatever someone wants it to be is a method of hypnosis.
Politicians are sometimes good at using this method, purposefully. They use techniques to have people fill in with their own desires what they are saying. They use being vague in deceptive ways to accomplish this. This is a way to become not just voted for, but to become worshipped by people.
I love the way that you casually deny everything that man has learned and has evidence for.
I love the way you didn't even bother to watch the video and are just here to vent your spleen.
@@mr.battle20 Within the first few seconds of the video I hear that Jesus was the 'creator' BUT..
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things...that wasn't Jesus. It goes downhill from there. Don't divert from faith threat and fear, it's all you have.
@@mr.battle20Also theists don't understand the principles of science which is to move forward with new discoveries and information on a subject like evolution which is being constantly updated. This is the opposite of theism which has to deny all modern discoveries due to a book written by people who knew only myth and wonder.
As you believe that God created man and man brought forward the knowledge of Him how was it that only the Hebrews and no surrounding areas, or in fact nowhere in the entire World knew of God. Does that not worry you Mr Lostthebattle?
@@dongee1664 So you don't want to see or hear anything that challenges your worldview ... OK. What else is evolution than faith? I prefer believing in something that is NOT proven non-existent (God) than believing in something that IS proven non-existent (abiogenesis and evolution from a Universal Common Ancestor).
@@jounisuninen Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said which was factual. Evolution is faith, is it?? No, there is a mountain of evidence for evolution and I am quite sure that you have never investigated it. You seem content in ignoring everything that science has discovered in recent times. I would suggest that you refrain from using worn out theist remarks and stick to faith..
Natural selection is the god of Darwinism and time is the means by which this god performs the miracle of turning crabs into beavers.
No crabs into beavers, but plenty of humans who have never actually read a single book about evolution and depend entirely on creationist blurbs for their info. Modern crabs and beavers (and lilacs and dogs and ants and elms) all have a common ancestor from billions of years ago.
Dr. Hebert mentioned that there is a shortage of people willing to delve into the literature. I've recently finished my BSc in general science, and one of the things I enjoyed most about my educational experience was digging into the literature on a topic and writing a paper on it. I'm just training for a job as a Meteorological Technician, and the position is going to leave me with some time and opportunity for further professional development. Can you offer some guidance in how I might be able to contribute to creation research?
Andrea, besides praying about your involvement, I suggest: 1. Develop your knowledge on creation science , 2. Teach creation science topics at the local church level, 3. Perhaps, eventually, pursue a PhD in a science you're fired up about. 4. Pray about creation science ministry.
There is no such thing as 'creation research' - there is just research - if you do 'creation research' you are starting with a presupposition - I thought you did a science degree.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Yes, I did a science degree. It was taught entirely according to evolutionary presuppositions. What's your science background?
@@paulwood6636 It is also important to come to grips with the literature on philosophy and theology of science. Yes, theology. You might start with Stanley Jaki's and Peter Harrison's work and read even 'liberal' theologians on creation. Then the philosophers, defined broadly. Popper is a must, as is Lakatos, Kuhn is OK, but more a sociologist of science. Polanyi is interesting, but again, less a philosopher IMO. There are plenty of basic PoS texts around to get you started...then you might read a couple of basic philosophy of religion texts. Again, there is no shortage of them. Scientists are not always good philosophers of their own domain, so get acquainted. Philosophy is 'tools for thinking'.
Some good suggestions here. I would suggest taking in some information from the Discovery Institute. They have some of the best content I have seen. Biology of living organisms is far too complex for abiogenesis to handle. Be aware that evolutionists are not above outright lying (I can give an example from RUclips comments). Having a firm background in advanced biological investigation will get you closer to where you want to be.
They think accidental mutations accidentally cause mindless changes, some nuetral, some positive, and some negative to survival and reproduction.
Positive accidental changes will make an organism more likely survive and remain. Negative mutational changes will cause the organism to more likely die, killing off and removing the negative mutations.
It's not really the way reality works, but this extremely simplistic thinking is pretty much how they think.
Evolutionists tend to hide the problem of genome not being able to generate (macro)evolution. In their theory mutations bring new information to the genome, thus creating new body plans i.e. evolution. This theory is against everything that science knows of mutations:
”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.]
Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.]
Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.]
Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.]
Science doesn't know evolutionary beneficial mutations that could transform the body plan of any given organism i.e. to generate (macro)evolution. All known mutations have been non-structural like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria, metabolic changes, colour changes etc.
Scripture is a sufficient framework for the foundation of biology.
Where in scripture is there a single reference to germs causing illness?
@@stevepierce6467 in a world that came about by random chance there would be no logical reason for germs or illness.
A very elementary foundation, I guess. The bible affirms that there are living things, and I guess that is the basis for a start at studying biology.
@@stevepierce6467 the first chapter of the Bible prescribes that creatures will always produce after their own kind. This prediction is verified every moment of every day in real-time. Darwin's prediction has never been observed.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 Except for all the times it has been observed, never. Genesis is a claim, not evidence. I can see natural selection every single day, as when the less attractive brother or sister ends up unmarried and childless, thus deleting her/his genes from the gene pool. Over millions of generations, this process often produces new species and genus and more. Homo sapiens is only about 20,000 generations or less old (400,000 years). Before that, the pre-human beings were not sexually compatible with modern humans, different species (although there is a lot of evidence that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were close enough to be compatible, a bit like dogs and wolves).
It would be interesting to know your opinion on the ecological niches axes conept, adaptation and the possibility of microevolution, in contrast to macroevolution
This seems to agree with Dr. Sanders book Genetic Entropy.
Natural selection is so logical.
In what way? To me it's not just illogical, it's ridiculous.
@@mike300rum Lack of logicsl thinking?
8:23 Your gloss on Lewontin's word 'sentient' is "that is, an intelligent creature" is of course wrong: it means able to feel, not able to think.
No…it means able to “perceive” or “feel” THINGS. Which means it has an “awareness”.
Unnatural subjectivity part 1: a good objectivism
Shame you dont have millions of views.
Would there be more, or less agreement on what NS does NOT work on?
If "nature" and its selection in the Dog-kind , versus Human breeding of the Dog-kind is compared, doesn't that confirm that "nature" is extremely limited in its ability To come up with large variety? Hundreds of new dog breeds in the last 150+/- years, v the "millions of years" of "natural selection" wild(wolf, fox, etc) ones?
Plus different dog breeds are all dogs and nothing else than dogs.
Thx!
Can natural selection be legitimately viewed in a limited sense by creationists as just a euphemism for environmental changes that allows the organisms with certain genetic variable features more survivability? Variability that was created into the design of the organism by the Creator?
Given the looseness of the definition, I'd avoid the term altogether. God didn't design a world wherein animals would be competing for resources, let alone eating each other so I wouldn't say that natural selection was part of his plan; just an observable consequence of the fall.
Good question Andrew. But, the answer is No because the environment is not responsible for the change. The organism adapts because of innate programming.
'euphemism' is not the correct term because it means a more socially acceptable word (e.g. Americans say 'rest room' or 'powder room' rather than 'toilet'. Also 'natural selection' is an oxymoron...and moronic...and probably demonic.
@@paulwood6636 Evolution theory according to Wikipedia means:
1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution.
2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago.
Point 1. is true as long as it does not mean new body plans appearing. Science has observed only intraspecies variation, not any structurally new species that could lead to new taxonomic genus or family.
Point 2. is only a hypothesis which has never been scientifically proved. If there ever was UCA, that asexual creature would've destroyed evolution before it could've even started.
Evolutionists nearly always try to cover these principles when they are dealing with seasoned creationists. There is no sign that birds, insects, mice etc. would be changing to something else than birds, insects, mice etc. Their genes simply don't allow it and mutations are not creative.
I would say that the entirety of His Plan and Design accounts for everything-even the consequences of man’s good and bad choices. “Natural CHOICES “ presupposes “Supra Natural Mind” in the creation, thus, if there is “choosing” there must be a mind involved as an a priori, And if the thing in nature is choosing without conscious mind then, it is following programmed information logic.
9:29 " It's worth noting the title of the article, "Natural selection, a conceptionally incoherent term'." For those who don't understand, that could be written, "Natural selection, a load of bollocks."
And yet - the evidence is all around us
@@StudentDad-mc3puand yet-not defined…so what is it?
@@StudentDad-mc3pu What evidence? Evidence for evolution or evidence for adaptive intraspecifi variation?
Neo-Darwinians have two different processes called "evolution" while neither of them is evolution in the Darwinian sense.
1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution. (Wikipedia)
2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago. (Wikipedia)
Point 1 is true if it does not try to claim that new body plans appear into existing species. Science has observed only intraspecific adaptive variation, never structurally new species that could lead to a new taxonomic genus, family, order, class etc. This is sometimes called ”micro evolution”. No new genetic information is needed in the "micro evolution" since all changes happen within the species' own genome (gene recombination).
Point 2 is just a hypothesis which has never been scientifically proven. It is usually called ”evolution” or ”macro evolution”. It would need such totally new genetic information which is not found in the species' existing genome. Since (macro)evolution is fiction, new genes of course are not needed. This is fortunate, because there isn’t any qualitatively new "free" genetic information to be found on our planet. All genes are already fixed in their appropriate species.
I’d love to see all of you debate Aron Ra at once, as he’d shut you down every step of the way, and I know you certainly wouldn’t want that to happen seeing everything you say is based on faith, and not evidence !
Never heard of Aaron Ra, but I can promise Dr. Galiuzza would easily win.
What they don't address are all the myriads of mutation results that would not work. It's all based on that a random mistake has the slight possible potential to allow an organism to continue to exist in a changing environment while the original organism becomes obsolete. For all the few mutations that might work to cause the organism to remain, there would be myriads of mutations that not only would not be conducive to allowing a better chance at remaining, but would be harmful and confusing within the organism's likelihood of surviving.
Examples of mutations being helpful are close to nonexistent.
And this is what happens.
Arms are helpful
@@LuciferAlmighty @LuciferAlmighty You presuppose they are from countless beneficial, perfectly synchronized mutations all coming together in one organism at one time exactly when needed. Wow! Talk about faith.
@@kathleennorton7913 That, of course, is not what happens.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Oh really. How is natural selection fueled by survival going to select for the millions and millions of mutations needed for an arm over vast periods of time the whole while the arm is a liability until fully formed and functional, with hands and fingers.
OK, I'm waiting.
These texts in the scriptures say it all: 1 Corinthians 1:19-21 and 1 Corinthians 3: 18-20
I guess they never heard of volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, or tornadoes!
make up what you desire.
Is there a plan to have educational videos from a biblical worldview? I get very tired of millions of years in educational videos.
The problem is that there isn’t a consensus Biblical View on “age”.
'Hello everyone"? A RUclips or podcast presenter has an audience of one-at-a-time. Plural language makes the presentation far less engaging. Best to use the old saying of radio presenters: always imagine that your are talking to only one person, a good friend who you've been out of touch with for a few years. This gives a natural warmth, intimacy and connection to your presentation.
What did Darwin pull off?
Only the 3rd greatest lie in history; No.1 being the lie 'You will not die', No.2 being that the liar who said that does not exist.
LOL
'You will not die' - true! When Lord Jesus spoke of death he often meant the eternal death, not necessarily the death all people meet sooner or later. In this life we choose between temporary death and eternal death.
The term "evolution" is no different. No one can define what it even means. I know of at least 6 different definitions, and the evolutionsist is always ready to pivot and use a different definition as soon as they get in trouble. It's a bait and switch.
Jesus was a co-creator with his Father..... His Father Is the Prime creator,,, thus is completely Biblical. Did Jesus ressurect himself? Why did Jesus pray to his Father? And even asked 'why have you forsaken me?' Jesus is our mediator to Heavenly Father.... why Does rev say Jesus hands the Keys back over to his Father when His Fathers Kingdom has been restored? Jesus embodied and expressed his Father's Spirit on earth to honour and Glorify his Father...... Jesus said 'the Father is greater than I' Jesus was perfectly connected to his Father and so he could say 'I and the Father are one's but when he became extremely angry and violently judgmental in the temple, he disconnected himself from his Father and even his own clear teaching of non-judgment, as Bible says the Father is the supreme judge.... but for Jesus to be the perfect intersessor between us and the Father he had to feel and understand how difficult it is to be perfect, he was born into the fallen nature of humankind and he truly overcame sin by his suffering and final prayer asking his Father to 'Forgive them for they know not what they do' this way he fully pleased his Father. Yes as bible says 'he will be called mighty God' but his Father is GOD. I pray that you you understand this and give full honour to our Perfect heavenly Father,,,, and his Perfect begotton Son Jesus Christ.
Peace love faith wisdom and Joy to You.
The fact that this lot has to call themselves as appolegetics reveals a lot ...
I wonder how many American Christians appreciate the fact that they were born in the right country to get the one true religion? how lucky are they that they were not born in Pakistan, Japan or Saudi Arabia? or they might never have heard about Jesus Christ let alone know who he was. Does it bother Christians that there are Billions of people who were given absolutely no chance of getting into heaven? they were born and lived their lives without ever hearing the name Jesus Christ.
There will be people in heaven who had never heard the name of Jesus.
@@truthbebold4009The person who wrote the words Jesus is supposed to have said (because Jesus didn't write any part of the bible) wrote "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." That, as you have just pointed out is not true if you can get into heaven without even knowing the name Jesus. Don't you ever sit and think? "This is just rubbish designed for suckers to believe".
@@Shytot-1 And in your mind that means that they can't enter heaven without knowing His name?
@@truthbebold4009 For me there is no heaven (and no one can be sure there was a Jesus) but that's what it says in your book. It's well known that religious people cherry pick the bits they want or do not want to believe.
Nature seems to have a "mind" to create and build efficient living structures....not.....
It all has to do with how much wacky weed they (the evolutionists) have smoked before and during their hypothesizing on the subject and how many bags of chips and pop tarts they have consumed.
"...our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ" ...I wish I could get my head wrapped around that.
How many hats must Jesus wear? : Created, Resurrected, Creator. I'm confused.
Can Jesus be the Perfect Model of a man? - leading us (?)
Can I be a Christian if Jesus is not a Creator to me? Must Jesus be something magical?
Read the Gospel of John. In the best of cases you may understand something important to positively change your life ...
@@jounisuninen My problem is not Jesus, it is John! Bible scholars agree that John never existed. The Gospel of John was written 140 - 160 years after Jesus walked the Earth. Yet 'John' writes, "And Jesus said..." (how would 'John' know what Jesus said - like I can't say, "And Abe Lincoln said..." - 150 years ago! Why I take the Bible with a grain of salt.
@@jthepickle7would you say that is undisputed? You say that the scholars agree that John did not exist and you give dates. Perhaps you should educate yourself some more.
@@jthepickle7don’t ever try to write an biography on Lincoln if you can’t say anything about Lincoln. And since you can’t say anything about Lincoln, why ARE you saying something about Lincoln? Who is this Lincoln? How can you be sure of anything about Lincoln? Are you even sure that what was wrote about Lincoln is reliable-given that you were not there and personally saw and knew Lincoln?
How many “hats” do you wear?
Why don't we have Christian institute where we can study science from a biblical perspective.....
Because it would not be science.
There are Christian colleges
@@StudentDad-mc3punaw. Modern Science was founded by Christians who wanted to investigate Gods creation. Material Scientific Method itself is neutral, but not it’s purpose. We all bring our perspectives in when we explain it.
@@richiejourney1840 Science may have been about exploring 'Gods creation' for some early western scientists, however science itself was not just invented by western Christian ls but by atheistic heathens in ancient Greece, mystics in China and Muslim mathematicians.
Yes, it is neutral. And it tells that Evolution describes the way speciation came about.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu "Evolution describes the way speciation came about." - No it doesn't. Evolution theory claims that speciation generates evolution. Also that is wrong.
Surely there is natural selection which generates speciation. Speciation however can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution.
Natural selection could produce evolution if it could deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the population. Natural selection however delivers nothing, it just exterminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or become too rare) which means that on population level everybody's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished.
This is just adaptation, not evolution. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct.
We can observe that natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.
Disappointed in the discussion. Natural selection, in other words, is selection of the traits that best fit the environment. Natural selection is true. Evolution, common descent, is unproveable with no methodology. Imho it's false. Grace
Evolution would be possible if natural selection had extra genes to donate to the survivors. But natural selection owns nothing, it only wipes out the less fit. Survivors must continue with the genes they already have.
Why do creationists constantly bash Darwin? Darwin was one of the greatest scientists of all time. But these guys try to use his words out of context, using them to bolster their belief theories. This is not fair. You can find fault with anyone if you twist words.
Cynic, I didn't hear them bash Darwin. They bashed the idea that nature has agency.
Nah!😊
Atleast Darwin's justifiers thought it's not environment that selects instead species 'endogenously' without once realised Who made happen originally
@@uiPublic We do not know.
@@paulwood6636 We have agency and we are part of nature. Animals also have agency.
It seems evolution theory is in trouble again. 😂😂
It's never been in trouble.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu
You need to research it.
Yeh, the most tested scientific theory of all time is in big trouble! LOL Accepted in all other scientific fields as the explanation for bio diversity on the planet it is on its knees!! LMFAO
@@StudentDad-mc3pu At least not in a trouble as big as the current one.
The phlogiston theory in 1667 stated that phlogisticated substances contain phlogiston and that they dephlogisticate when burned, releasing stored phlogiston which is absorbed by the air. Phlogiston remained the dominant theory until the 1770s. Phlogiston theory was taught in universities even after it was debunked. Doesn't that sound like evolution theory today?
Phlogiston teaches us that just because a theory is widely accepted among scientists, is believed to explain all the evidence, and reigns supreme for a long time, does not mean that it is true. Indeed, phlogiston was in many ways a stronger theory than is evolution today. The phlogiston theory lasted for over 100 years. For most of that time, all the prominent scientists believed it. It seemed to explain so much. But it was wrong.
Although many today would laugh at the phlogiston theory as being hopelessly naive, nevertheless it was in many ways better justified than evolution, the ruling paradigm of our time.
@@StudentDad-mc3puif it’s an indisputable fact based on mindless nature alone, where is the indisputable evidence?
After over 4 billion years of Earths existence God popped into the head of a Jew shaman who didn't want a proper job as a simple way of explaining Nature.
That's not fair - lots of people and cultures have used 'god' as an excuse for a free lunch.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Yeah but the Judeao Christian faith and its offshoot Islam haven't curbed the murder, the theft, the lies, the powermongering . 98.5% of Nazi Germany were Christians
Where is your evidence for over 4 billion years of Earths existence ...?
@@jounisuninen The half life for Uranium235 radioactive decay to Lead is 4.5 billion years. U235 is found everywhere in trace amounts and wide study of U235 to Lead ratios around the world come up with this figure which is in agreement with those obtained from meteorites and moon samples.
@@jounisuninen Argon and Potassium isotopes, actually.